Free GUARDIAN Election Guidance

We have tried hard over the years to offer information while not endorsing candidates. We will stand by that policy, but several ballot measures need to to be addressed.

PROP 1 knows as the “instant (or historical) racing vote is nothing more than an attempt to garner public approval of slot machines. Slots are outlawed by the Idaho Constitution, so regardless of the vote to approve the machines, the Idaho Supreme court will ultimately have to determine whether or not the machines are slots. We suggest a “NO” vote.

ACHD VEHICLE FEE INCREASE is an unfair tax which exempts commercial vehicles in excess of 8,000 lbs while imposting a 75% fee hike on lightweight vehicles. The legislature will address the enabling legislation at the next session. Meanwhile the current fees will remain regardless of the election outcome. We suggest a “NO” vote.

PROP 2 MEDICAID EXPANSION was placed on the ballot due to a massive statewide initiative campaign. It deserves a “YES” vote.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Dave:
    Your probably right about voting yes on Prop 1. Even if it passes I doubt we will see it enacted in Idaho. However, I’m going to vote yes just to give a wedgie in the knickers of all those do gooders who are trying to legislate morality.

  2. I notice that you give good reasons to vote no, but just a lame massive statewide campaign as the reason for a yes on Medicaid. Why do I want to obligate the state to more welfare?

  3. Steven Parry
    Sep 27, 2018, 5:32 pm

    I could not agree more. If the State is to have slot machines (historical racing) than all of the profits should go to education or some other public purpose and not to support a particular industry.

    A NO vote on the vehicle fee increase doesn’t mean you are against increased funding. The increase should be voted on after the Legislature makes the fee applicable to all Ada county vehicles.

  4. Just got my mail-in ballot, already filled in my little rectangles, and totally agree with your recommendations.
    Voted a split ticket otherwise.

  5. As Medicaid Expansion deserves a yes, then it is also appropriate that those legislators blocking it for the past years deserve a thumbs down for their opposition.

    It is folks like Raul Labrador, so stubborn to accept the premise that low-income people need subsidized health care, and legislative hurdles of Bedke, Moyle, & Crane, along with past party efforts of Stephen Yates (lost Lt Gov primary) that the party leadership has refused to provide a solution.
    They FAILED to even introduce bills on the floor for a VOTE. That is Republican dictatorship!

    Candidate Little has said he will support it, IF it passes. Why not simply support the concept regardless of the proposition results and LEAD for the right action?

    Interesting these 3 guide suggestions are against the Idaho establishment.

  6. I doubt that Idaho establishment is in favor of Prop 1. Just Otter and his cronies in the horse racing world. Prop 1 would grant a casino franchise to rich guys, that is it in a nutshell.

    I am going to vote against the ACHD proposal. There has been no real effort to show what past fees have provided in regard to public safety. That was the basis for the last vote. Instead, there has just been bickering from a dysfunctional board.

    Healthcare expansion is a no brainer.

  7. Concerned Neighbor
    Sep 29, 2018, 12:05 pm

    Prop 1 is obvious gambling. No.

    ACHD fee scheme is more corporate welfare. No.

    Has anyone actually read the details of Prop 2 Medicaid? It’s Obamacare, which has been overwhelmingly rejected by this state. While I’d like the state to fund healthcare with proven ROI such as vaccines, this isn’t it. Prop 2 is a massive sink hole of tax money.

  8. Dave Kangas
    Sep 29, 2018, 1:51 pm

    I will vote yes for prop 1 as more of a stick in the eye of the establishment. No on ACHD’s proposal. I have not seen any public communication, surveys or justification for the increase as structured. It is actually a waste of time and money to put it forth as they did. Yes on Medicaid expansion. The legislature has had more than enough time, performed enough studies, task forces to know this is needed. Yet they balk to move forward out of fear of crossing their leadership and the IFF.

  9. The Concerned Neighbor is incorrect in the statement of Prop 2.
    It is not “ObamaCare”. It is not even ACA.

    Idaho’s Medicaid has been around since since 1966. Under current and past rules, a single person is not eligible to participate in Medicaid. It has NOTHING to do with the ACA (Obamacare).

    Normally, Medicaid is for low-income people. But, currently, a single person, under age 65, with less about $12,000 (133% of poverty line) of income is not able to get insurance through the Idaho insurance exchange AND in not eligible to use Medicaid either. Naysayers may call someone with less than 12,000 of income as slacker and ‘get a job’. Not so easy when one is chronically ill, or some other reason.

    So they have NO practical access to health insurance or significant health care. That can actually affect all of us. In today’s world, my neighbors health indirectly affects my health and my costs. That is simple math.

    Mental health care?
    Idahoans are “overwhelmingly” concerned about a young male with mental health issues going on a deadly rampage… maybe providing quality mental healthcare for that person is WAY less expensive than training teachers, buying MRAPS, employee security gates, and whatever else is available instead of dealing with the real issue- mental healthcare.

    No preventative care, no minor care. So the result is emergency room care- and then the bill goes to the county; to be paid by Idaho TAXDOLLARS. Waiting until a problem becomes more severe is a NOT reasonable “ROI” by any standard.

    Prop 2 helps eliminates that situation with access to Medicaid supported care, for those ineligible people, and it clarifies federal money to cover the added costs to the state.

    THIS could have happened long before the dems even proposed ACA. But now with the ACA, the problem is just more obvious.

    CN, you could become informed about it and reconsider your vote.
    Find someone in that situation and ask them why they don’t have health insurance and what they need.

    EDITOR NOTE–Many Thanks for the tutorial. It should make it easier for folks to decide their vote.

  10. Concerned Neighbor
    Oct 1, 2018, 8:23 am

    Easterner describes what Medicaid is available today – not Prop 2.

    First, if someone is disabled to the point where they cannot work then Social Security Disability is available to them.

    Prop 2 increases tax costs to cover people up to 133% (up from 100%) of the federal poverty level. Here’s the chart based on number of people in a household (Easterner quoted 100% dollars):
    1 $15,800
    2 $21,307
    3 $26,813
    4 $32,319

    It also increases costs for additional coverage to cover what a lot of private insurance doesn’t cover. So you are paying for someone else to have better insurance than you probably do. Look up “10 Essential Benefits”.

    Numbers point to tax money paying for an increase of 5% to 10% (depending who you believe) of the population to be on socialized health care – that the rest of us pay for. Not for preventive medicine – which has proven ROI so should be funded – but far above and beyond.

    Easterner is correct on one item – do your research. Media is biased.

  11. It is too bad that even though there is a good blog like this that reports relevant issues, that concerned neighbors blather their prejudices. Thanks this time Easterner.

  12. C.N.,

    Disability and SSI are not on this topic.

    Yes, you have listed the exact income levels. Good job.Those amounts change each year as well. And those are cliff thresholds. For example, If I have $15,000 income I can’t participate in the insurance exchange to get affordable (??) coverage.

    $15,900- I’m in like Flynn.
    $14,000? Sorry no insurance!
    Does that make sense to anyone?
    Or shall we allow that person to use Medicaid while necessary?

    Stating “Prop 2 increases tax costs” is a very loaded (bias scare tactic) statement.
    IF we spend $1,000 in preventative care to save $10,000 in emergency care next year, does that increase tax costs?
    Yet supposed fiscal conservatives will ignore the $1,000 cost today knowing the $10,000 cost will occur next year? Apparently Idaho leadership says ‘this broken system is okay’ despite all the counties supporting the expansion.

    Let’s think long-term for money and think with empathy to do the the right thin for our real neighbors and fellow Idahoans.

    Increasing costs to cover the essentials? AGAIN, ROI…
    Major studies say Idaho will save dollars. In simple terms, reducing county and state taxes to be replaced by federal dollars to reduce overall costs with better, more efficient spending- just like vaccines.

    “paying for someone else to have better insurance (MEDICAID) than you probably do”.

    Wow! When you truly think Medicaid is better health care than your private policy, you either have terrible insurance (or none) or lack a grasp of the obvious. – or listen to FOX too much.

    Since CN is using terms such as “socialized health care” it is apparently a lack of the obvious.

    “Socialized health care”- much more of political term than any reality. Although one of our true socialized health care is the VA Hospital. 100% owned and funded by the govt. Benefactors do not pay any direct relationship to the service they receive and the sky is the limit for the services and care provided.
    And yet look at the number of veterans (including redneck Trump supporters) running to that system of socialized health care. Some are dying there, but it doesn’t stop the line. They can’t get there fast enough!

    Thanks editor for leniency on the space used. 😉

  13. Redneck Trump supporter
    Oct 2, 2018, 10:13 am

    Well its good to see you show your colors. When it comes down to brass tax its name calling. I never thought of myself as a “redneck Trump supporter”, but so be it. Since us Redneck Vets is running to the VA as you put it. You can come up with a solution to a place they can take care of Vets with the myriad of service connected injuries and aliments?
    FYI, I’m voting no on 2.

  14. I have said it before and will say it again…If you are opening the door for instant horse racing why not let small stake poker/slot machines come back to Idaho City.

    Boise County schools need to be saved as much as horse racing.

  15. RTS, I am all for the VA Hospital system in the majority of it’s operations and eligibility. Idaho is fortunate to have great facilities in that system.

    The point is– the hypocrisy of some of those using that socialized healthcare system. “It’s okay for me, but not other deserving people.” It has nothing to do with colors or partisanship.

  16. The real interesting thing about the ballot measures is that no matter what the out come is the legislature can do what they what.

    Seems like we voted in term limits a few years back but… the legislature decide that there are many reasons not to have them….

    Just saying

    EDITOR NOTE–Regardless of the vote, the slots are still unconstitutional unless the Supremes somehow rule otherwise. The legislature is the only place a constitutional amendment can originate and then the people vote statewide.

  17. Escaped from LA
    Oct 11, 2018, 10:36 am

    I agree with CN on Medicaid expansion… this opens up Medicaid to all of the bums laying around behind the mission who won’t get jobs … and gives them better medical care than we get on Medicare or my son gets on Obamacare exchange. Those who are disabled and cannot work are elegible for SS Disability / Medicare. Our family worked our entire life and benefits are shrinking for the working class while increasing for those who won’t work. Son with wife and 2 kids pays $700 mo for insurance with 10k deductible… great huh !

  18. Escapee– Great! Another one. smh.
    “better medical care than Medicare”

    It is unfortunate so many people operate from a point of fear.
    How about this fear? It might be you someday, or your son, or grandchild.

    It’s a pretty complicated topic. To use snipets from Talk Radio is extremely shallow ___.

    The exact statement of “Disability/Medicare” is misleading.
    As if “those people” already have a perfect solution: the other disabled working, and those unlucky poor working people, and those BUMS who won’t work– cause CN won’t hire them-

    — It’s just ridiculous fear.
    Screw over 10,000 working poor just to prevent that one crafty bum from ‘working the system’ to get a free physical exam, prevent pneumonia, or get some mental counseling.
    Good plan Idaho GOP!

    Some actual decent content:
    “Disabled people who are approved for Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits will receive Medicare, and those who are approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) will receive Medicaid.
    However, SSDI recipients aren’t eligible to receive Medicare benefits until two years AFTER their date of entitlement. There is no waiting period for SSI recipients to receive Medicaid.”

    TWO Years for Medicare?
    In the meantime? Chronic illness just gets worse. If one survives the two years it will certainly cost more to treat the problem(s). Good cost analysis. Heck, they might die and think of the money the state will save.

    Here you go Escapee, please highlight for us where Medicaid is “better”:

  19. I was reading in “Homeless Life” magazine about which states and cities have the most low hanging fruit. What will this election do for me here in Boise? Which way to vote to get more free stuff?

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: